Most know Carthage as a mercantile-based nation with little expertise in mustering standing armies, instead using client state levies and mercenaries to field a mediocre to sometimes a decent fighting force. Because of the lack of a proper military, Carthaginian Generals were usually left to fend for themselves and received very little support from the government. If the general failed, imminent crucifixion awaited him. But what if this was not the case? What if instead of inheriting the mercantile culture of its Phoenician forefather, Carthage comes into conflict with the Greeks much more often. Berber tribes are much more hostile to a Punic presence in Africa. My idea is to create a TL where Carthage instead is forced to become militant due to the hostile nature of its Berber neighbors and constant competition with the Greeks for colonies. Any thoughts?
There's some recent scholarship that challenges this traditional view of Carthage. Some studies have shown that, while clearly not as much a generally militaristic society as Rome or some Hellenic cities (Sparta comes to mind, though that picture has also been the target of some deserved deeper scrutiny) Carthage did not rely solely on mercenaries and allied auxiliaries, but had some citizen army like other city-states of Antiquity. It has also been suggested that the "mercenaries" quoted in some sources were actually more akin to a standing army, at least in part (clearly at least part of them was not Carthaginian).
Carthage was by no means a peaceful mercantile city-state; they
did have an imperialistic policy, bullied their neighbours often enough, and conquered on land and across the sea if they could and profited. It also seems that various strata of Carthaginian society benefited from conquest and expansion (
alongside trade, not necessarily in opposition to it) and were onboard with that.
Of course, their society was not imbued with the all-pervading centrality of warfare in the way we often see in Greece and parts of Italy in the same period, either organizationally or ideologically (from what we know). So, by the standards of the Hellenes and Romans who handed down Carthaginian history to us (with a largely hostile POV, being their enemies), perhaps they were indeed tree-hugging peaceniks... But their perspective was the one of
extremely militaristic society (in outlook if not in actual practice). Certainly Carthage was able to put a serious, long standing military challenge to many Hellenic powers
and to the Romans alike, and did so consistently and repeatedly, even if not successfully in the end.
Ofc, you still can make them more militaristic. Does not guarantee that they stand up to Rome (hard to beat
that). It is problematic to maintain the naval focus in this way, however: a large citizen
army is a thing, but then you more or less need a large pool of yeomen to recruit it from; a citizen
navy was frigging expensive in Antiquity, let alone its political implications; Athens did that, but it went hand in hand with radical democracy, not something the mercantile elites are going to be too fond of.